DOCSLIB.ORG

New Voting Restrictions in America

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Voting Restrictions in America 120 Broadway Suite 1750 New York, New York 10271 646.292.8310 Fax 212.463.7308 www.brennancenter.org New Voting Restrictions in America After the 2010 election, state lawmakers nationwide started introducing hundreds of harsh measures making it harder to vote. The new laws range from strict photo ID requirements to early voting cutbacks to registration restrictions. Overall, 25 states have put in place new restrictions since then — 14 states have more restrictive voter ID laws in place (and six states have strict photo ID requirements), 12 have laws making it harder for citizens to register, seven cut back on early voting opportunities, and three made it harder to restore voting rights for people with past criminal convictions. In 2016, 14 states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election. Those 14 states were: Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In 2017, legislatures in Arkansas and in North Dakota passed voter ID bills, which governors in each state signed, and Missouri implemented a restrictive law that was passed by ballot initiative in 2016. (Texas also passed a new voter ID law, though its earlier strict voter ID law was partially in effect in 2016.) Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, and New Hampshire also enacted restrictions last year, in addition to laws that were on the books for previous elections In 2018, Arkansas, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Wisconsin have enacted new restrictions. This page details the new restrictive voting requirements put in place over the last several years. Click here for an interactive version of this page. Last updated January 7, 2019. Alabama New restriction(s) in place in the first time in 2016: Photo ID required to vote. Click here to see the types of ID required under Alabama’s law. Background: Passed in 2011 by a Republican-controlled legislature and signed by a GOP governor, the photo ID law initially required pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. But the measure was allowed to go into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court gutted that provision in 2013. Alabama also passed a law in 2011 requiring voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote. That requirement had been on hold, but in January 2016, the Election Assistance Commission’s Executive Director announced that documentary proof of citizenship would be added to the national voter registration form instructions for Alabama. A federal appeals court blocked the registration requirement on September 9, 2016. It is subject to ongoing litigation. Arizona New restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2016: Limitations on mail-in ballot collection. Background: In 2016, a Republican-controlled legislature passed a bill limiting collection of mail-in ballots and making it a felony to knowingly collect and turn in another voter’s completed ballot, even with that voter’s permission (the law has exceptions for direct family members, caregivers, and postal-service employees). Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed the bill, which went into effect in the summer of 2016. Other restrictions in play: In 2004, voters approved a referendum requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated this measure as it applied to the federal voter registration form. And in 2018, as part of the settlement of a lawsuit, the state agreed to register applicants to vote in federal elections, without documentary proof of citizenship, regardless of whether the state or federal form was used. Arkansas New law enacted in 2018: Arkansas voters enacted a constitutional amendment, via ballot initiative, that enshrined a photo ID requirement for voting in the state constitution. New law in place in 2018: Requires that voters show one of a limited set of IDs. Click here to see the types of ID required under Arkansas's law. Background: Passed in 2017 by a GOP-controlled state legislature. * The Arkansas legislature also passed another law this year that would amend the state’s constitution to require voter ID. But it must be approved by voters in the form of a ballot initiative before taking effect. Florida Restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2012: Cut early voting, curbed voter registration drives, and made it harder to restore voting rights to people with past criminal convictions. 2 Original effective date: 2011 Background: In 2011, Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature passed a series of laws, signed by Gov. Rick Scott (R), making it harder to vote. First, lawmakers reduced the early voting period, which contributed to long lines in the 2012 election. The legislature responded in 2013 by restoring some of the early voting days, but there are still fewer early balloting opportunities today than before the 2011 cutbacks. Second, Florida passed new restrictions on voter registration drives. With the help of the Brennan Center, the most onerous aspects of this law were enjoined by a federal court in August 2012. Finally, Gov. Scott reversed a prior executive action that had made it easier to restore voting rights to people with past criminal convictions. In effect, the state now permanently disenfranchises most citizens with past felony convictions. Georgia New restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2018: The state legislature passed and the governor signed a bill that would make voter registration more difficult. It imposes a requirement that voter registration forms match exactly with other state records — a burdensome process known as “no match, no vote.” Only months earlier, the secretary of state agreed in a court settlement to stop a similar procedure that had prevented tens of thousands from registering. Restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2012: Reduced early voting period from 45 to 21 days and cut early voting the weekend before Election Day. Background: In 2009, a Republican-controlled legislature passed a law requiring voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote. That requirement had been on hold, but in January 2016, the Election Assistance Commission’s Executive Director announced that that documentary proof of citizenship would be added to the national voter registration form instructions. A federal appeals court blocked the registration requirement on September 9, 2016. It is subject to ongoing litigation. In 2011, a Republican-controlled legislature also reduced early voting. Both laws were signed by a GOP governor. Illinois Restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2012: Curbed voter registration drives. Original effective date: 2011 Background: Passed in 2011 by a Democratic-controlled legislature and signed by a Democratic governor, the measure changed the allotted time for returning voter registration forms. The previous law allowed seven days to return the forms. The amended law requires completed registration materials to be returned by first-class mail within two business days, or by personal delivery within seven days. This rule is not nearly as harmful as others, like one in Texas, because the reduction does not apply to groups only using the national mail-in voter registration form. Indiana New restriction enacted in 2017 and 2018: In 2017, the state enacted a law to implement a flawed voter purge process. The law provides for use of the error-prone Crosscheck Program to remove voters without the notice and waiting period required by the National Voter Registration Act. (The law was amended in 2018, but the state failed to fix the law’s failure to require notice to 3 voters prior to purging them as mandated by federal law.) Civil rights groups sued the Secretary of State over the law in August 2017, and a court entered a preliminary injunction against the state in June 2018, meaning the law is currently not in effect. New restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2016: Allows additional party-nominated election officers to demand voters provide proof of identification.* Background: Passed in 2013 by a Republican-controlled state legislature and signed by a GOP governor. * This law subjects voters to an additional and duplicative voter identification requirement that did not exist before the law was enacted. If, however, precinct election officials always enforce the voter ID requirement in a uniform manner, this law may not have a restrictive effect. Iowa New law (partially) in place in 2018: Iowa’s governor signed a broad-based law that will require voter ID (starting after the 2018 election), restrict voter registration efforts, and impose new burdens on Election Day registration and early and absentee voting. Although not as restrictive as a North Carolina law that passed in 2013 (and was blocked by a federal court), Iowa’s law similarly restricts voting in a number of different ways. In August 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court blocked parts of the law that made it more difficult to apply for an absentee ballot and also enjoined the state from advertising that voters will be asked for ID, without making clear that such ID is not required in 2018. Restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2012: Made it harder to restore voting rights to people with past criminal convictions. Original effective date: 2011 Background: In 2011, Gov. Terry Branstad (R) reversed a prior executive action that had made it easier to restore voting rights to people with past criminal convictions. In effect, the state now permanently disenfranchises most citizens with past felony convictions. Kansas Update since 2016: In 2018, a federal district court struck down the state’s documentary proof of citizenship law. That decision is on appeal. New restriction(s) in place for the first time in 2016: Documentary proof of citizenship required to register using the state registration form.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DEFENDING DEMOCRACY: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America 1
    DEFENDING DEMOCRACY: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America 1 DEFENDING DEMOCRACY: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America A Report by the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. and the NAACP 2 DEFENDING DEMOCRACY: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) National Headquarters 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, New York 10013 212.965.2200 www.naacpldf.org The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund (LDF) is America’s premier legal organization fighting for racial justice. Through litigation, advocacy, and public education, LDF seeks structural changes to expand democracy, eliminate racial disparities, and achieve racial justice, to create a society that fulfills the promise of equality for all Americans. LDF also defends the gains and protections won over the past 70 years of civil rights struggle and works to improve the quality and diversity of judicial and executive appointments. NAACP National Headquarters 4805 Mt. Hope Drive Baltimore, Maryland 21215 410.580.5777 www.naacp.org Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. Our mission is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial discrimination. For over one hundred years, the NAACP has remained a visionary grassroots and national organization dedicated to ensuring freedom and social justice for all Americans. Today, with over 1,200 active NAACP branches across the nation, over 300 youth and college groups, and over 250,000 members, the NAACP remains one of the largest and most vibrant civil rights organizations in the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • “NAACP”) and the Ohio State Conference of the NAACP (“OH NAACP”) Respectfully Submit This Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents in This Matter.1
    No. 16-980 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JON HUSTED, OHIO SECRetARY OF STAte, Petitioner, v. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, et al., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CouRT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRcuIT BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE AND THE OHIO STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS MARTIN L. SAAD GILDA R. DANIELS KATHLEEN K. SHEriDAN Counsel of Record JOHN C. VAZQUEZ JUDITH BROWNE DIANIS CHriSTOPHER N. MORAN DONITA JUDGE VENABLE LLP EILEEN MA 600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW ANDREW HAirSTON Washington, DC 20001 ADVANCEMENT PROJECT (202) 344-4000 1220 L Street, NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 728-9557 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae (Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page) September 22, 2017 275734 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................i TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES ..............iv IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .....................................1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................2 ARGUMENT....................................6 I. OHIO’S SUPPRESSIVE VOTER TACTICS DENY THE RIGHT TO VOTE ....................................6 A. History of Voter Suppression in Ohio......6 1. Voter Challenges ...................7 2. Long Lines and Poll Worker Error ....7 3. Golden Week .......................8 4. Provisional Ballots .................10 5. Other Election Administration Errors ...........................11 ii Table of Contents Page B. Ohio’s History of Suppressive Voting Measures Has Led to Decreased Voter Engagement and Inactive Voters ........12 1. A Decline in Black Voter Participation in Ohio in 2016 Reflects the Impact of Voter Suppression.......................13 2. Disenfranchisement Results in Low Voter Participation Rates in Communities of Color ..............14 II.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Broken Voting System and How to Repair It
    THE 2012 ELECTION PROTECTION REPORT OUR BROKEN VOTING SYSTEM AND HOW TO REPAIR IT FULL REPORT PRESENTED BY ELECTION PROTECTION Led by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Ave, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 662-8600 Toll Free: (888) 299-5227 Fax: (202) 783-0857 www.866OurVote.org /866OurVote @866OurVote www.lawyerscommittee.org /lawyerscommittee @lawyerscomm © 2013 by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. This report may be reproduced in its entirety as long as Election Protection is credited, a link to the Coalition’s web page is provided, and no charge is imposed. The report may not be reproduced in part or in altered form, or if a fee is charged, without the Lawyers’ Committee’s permission. NOTE: This report reflects the views of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and does not necessarily reflect the views of any other Election Protection partner or supporter. About ELECTION PROTECTION The nonpartisan Election Protection coalition—led by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law—was formed to ensure that all voters have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. Made up of more than 100 local, state and national partners, this year’s coalition was the largest voter protection and education effort in the nation’s history. Through our state of the art hotlines (1-866-OUR-VOTE, administered by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and 1-888-Ve-Y-Vota, administered by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund); interactive website (www.866OurVote.org); and voter protection field programs across the country, we provide Americans from coast to coast with comprehensive voter information and advice on how they can make sure their vote is counted.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Written Testimony of Naila S. Awan Senior Counsel at Dēmos Before
    Written Testimony of Naila S. Awan Senior Counsel at Dēmos Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections Field Hearing: Voting Rights and Election Administration in Ohio April 25, 2019 Cleveland, Ohio Thank you, Chairwoman Fudge, and to all the Committee members for the invitation to testify today. My name is Naila Awan, and I am a Senior Counsel at Dēmos, a dynamic “think-and-do” tank that powers the movement for a just, inclusive, multiracial democracy. Our name—meaning “the people”—is the root word of democracy, and it reminds us that the promise of a democracy is only met when all the people can access the ballot, cast a vote that counts, and have a meaningful say in who and what laws govern. A study released last November that examined registration and voting laws to assess the time and effort it took to vote ranked Ohio as the 43rd hardest state to cast a ballot in during the 2016 presidential election.1 As a native Ohioan and proud Buckeye, who went to both college and law school in this state, I am proud of the work that Dēmos has done and continues to do to make voting accessible to all eligible Ohioans. My testimony today will describe several significant barriers to voting that currently exist in the state. It will focus on Ohio’s problematic practice of purging infrequent voters from the registration rolls, other practices that unfairly prevent Ohioans from participating in the electoral process, and how the elimination of Ohio’s same-day registration period, often referred to as “Golden Week,” negatively impacts Ohio voters.
    [Show full text]
  • Case: 2:14-Cv-00404-PCE-NMK Doc #: 18-1 Filed: 06/30/14 Page: 1 of 89 PAGEID #: 162
    Case: 2:14-cv-00404-PCE-NMK Doc #: 18-1 Filed: 06/30/14 Page: 1 of 89 PAGEID #: 162 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case No. 2:14 CV 00404 OHIO STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO, BETHEL AFRICAN METHODIST Judge Peter C. Economus EPISCOPAL CHURCH, COLLEGE HILL COMMUNITY CHURCH PRESBYTERIAN, U.S.A., OMEGA BAPTIST CHURCH, A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, and DARRYL FAIRCHILD, Plaintiffs, v. JON HUSTED, in his official capacity as Ohio Secretary of State, and MIKE DEWINE, in his official capacity as Ohio Attorney General, Defendants. ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS OF SENATE BILL 238 AND DIRECTIVE 2014-06 ON EARLY IN-PERSON (EIP) ABSENTEE VOTING BY BLACKS AND WHITES IN OHIO BY DR. DANIEL A. SMITH 1 Case: 2:14-cv-00404-PCE-NMK Doc #: 18-1 Filed: 06/30/14 Page: 2 of 89 PAGEID #: 163 I. Background and Qualifications I am Dr. Daniel A. Smith, Professor of Political Science and University of Florida Research Professor (2010-2012). I received my Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1994. For five academic years (2007-2011), I served as the Director of UF’s Political Campaigning Program, which offers a Master of Arts degree in political science with a special emphasis on political campaigning and practical politics. I currently serve as the UF Department of Political Science Graduate Coordinator, in charge of the M.A. and Ph.D. programs. I am also President of ElectionSmith, Inc., a political consulting firm based in Gainesville, FL, specializing in empirical research on electoral processes in the American states.
    [Show full text]
  • Voting Rights
    CARR CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY 1 FALL 2020 ISSUE 2020 - 002 CARR CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL Voting Rights Reimagining Rights & Responsibilities in the U.S. 2 CARR CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY Reimagining Rights & Responsibilities in the United States: Voting Rights Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University November 6, 2020 John Shattuck Carr Center Senior Fellow; Former US Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; Professor of Practice, Fletcher School, Tufts University Mathias Risse Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Philosophy and Public Administration; Director for the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy The authors’ institutional affiliations are provided for purposes of author identification, not as indications of institutional endorsement of the report. This report is part of a Carr Center project on Reimagining Rights and Responsibilities in the United States, directed by John Shattuck. The project has been overseen by a faculty committee chaired by Mathias Risse, with the collaboration of Executive Director Sushma Raman, and the support of the Carr Center staff. This research paper was drafted by Aimee Hwang (RA). The authors are grateful to Michael Blanding and Mayumi Cornejo for editing and Alexandra Geller for editorial and design. CARR CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY 1 Table of Contents 2. Introduction 3. Expanding the Right to Vote 3. Fear of Demographic Change 5. Equal Protection and Equality of Opportunity 5. Toolbox of Voting Regulations and Restrictions 11. Disproportionate Impacts of Voter Suppression 13. Voter Fraud: A Red Herring 17. Restoring the Right to Vote 21.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______
    No. 16A-______ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ___________________________ OHIO DEMOCRATIC PARTY; DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY; MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY; JORDAN ISERN; CAROL BIEHLE; AND BRUCE BUTCHER, Applicants, v. JON HUSTED, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF OHIO; AND MIKE DEWINE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Respondents. ___________________________ EMERGENCY APPLICATION TO STAY SIXTH CIRCUIT JUDGMENT PENDING DISPOSITION OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ___________________________ DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE ELENA KAGAN, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ___________________________ Marc E. Elias Donald J. McTigue Counsel of Record J. Corey Colombo Bruce V. Spiva Derek S. Clinger Elisabeth C. Frost MCTIGUE & COLOMBO LLC 545 East Town Street Rhett P. Martin Columbus, OH 43215 Amanda R. Callais PERKINS COIE LLP 700 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 654-6200 [email protected] Charles G. Curtis, Jr. Joshua L. Kaul PERKINS COIE LLP 1 East Main Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Counsel for Applicants September 1, 2016 STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 29.6 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.6, the undersigned states that none of the Applicants has a parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation holds 10 percent or more of any Applicant’s stock. -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT RULE 29.6 ...............................
    [Show full text]
  • Preventing Problems at the Polls: Ohio by Billy Corriher and Liz Kennedy October 11, 2016
    Preventing Problems at the Polls: Ohio By Billy Corriher and Liz Kennedy October 11, 2016 Ohio voters take pride in their state’s reputation as a bellwether for America. In the past The integrity of elections in the United 3 States demands that every eligible Ameri- 13 presidential races, the candidate who won Ohio also won the White House. This has can is able to cast a ballot and trust that it led to record high turnout during recent presidential elections but has also been accom- will be counted. Americans have the right to choose their representatives and take panied by big problems with voting. part in electoral decision-making. But across the country, thousands of voters have not had their voices heard—either because of For decades, Ohio’s elections have been plagued by election administration issues and targeted voter suppression laws or poor attempts by Ohio secretaries of state to purge voters from the rolls.4 The purges have election administration decisions.1 While the vast majority of Americans will vote without contributed to longer lines, as election officials and voters struggle to determine who encountering difficulties, in recent election should vote. Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found that Ohio cycles, voters have faced preventable prob- lems and unnecessary hurdles. Failures at was violating the law by removing people from the voting rolls simply for not having the polls may deny individuals their right to voted in recent elections. Ohio must ensure that those voters’ registrations are reinstated participate in the democratic process.
    [Show full text]
  • 2:14-Cv-00404-PCE-NMK Doc #: 40-3 Filed: 07/23/14 Page: 1 of 31 PAGEID #: 850
    Case: 2:14-cv-00404-PCE-NMK Doc #: 40-3 Filed: 07/23/14 Page: 1 of 31 PAGEID #: 850 EXHIBIT C Case: 2:14-cv-00404-PCE-NMK Doc #: 40-3 Filed: 07/23/14 Page: 2 of 31 PAGEID #: 851 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION OHIO STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED Case No. 2:14-cv-00404 PEOPLE, et al. Plaintiffs, Judge Peter C. Economus v. Magistrate Judge King JON HUSTED, et al. Defendants. DECLARATION OF VINCENT KEERAN I, Vincent Keeran, declare under penalty of perjury that the following 1s true and accurate: 1. I am currently serving as the Clerk of the Ohio Senate. I have served in that role since November 2007. In that role, I am the custodian of records for all bills, amendments, resolutions, and other legislative documents of the Senate. 2. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of testimony submitted by Aaron Ockerman, Executive Director of the Ohio Association of Election Officials, on November 19, 2013 to the Senate State Government Oversight and Reform Committee regarding Senate Bill 1 238 ofthe 130 h General Assembly. 3. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of sponsor testimony submitted by State Senator Frank LaRose on November 19, 2013 to the Senate State Government 1 Oversight and Reform Committee regarding Senate Bill238 ofthe 130 h General Assembly. Case: 2:14-cv-00404-PCE-NMK Doc #: 40-3 Filed: 07/23/14 Page: 3 of 31 PAGEID #: 852 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Votervotervoter the Newsletter of the League of Women Voters of Ohio Fall 2016 Special 2016 Election Edition
    1920 96 2016 OhioOhioOhio VoterVoterVoter The Newsletter of the League of Women voters of Ohio Fall 2016 Special 2016 Election Edition Outreach to Purged & Infrequent Voters Early Voting Schedule Ohio voters face a new challenge this year. Hundreds of thousands of Weekdays: Ohio voters think they are registered but will be surprised to discover they are no longer on the rolls. Ohio has a troubling policy of removing or 8am-5pm, Oct. 12-14 & 17-21 “purging” voter registrations of people who do not vote for a few years. 8am-6pm, Oct. 24-28 This state policy is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit (see story on page 2). 8am-7pm, Oct. 31 - Nov. 4 The number of Ohio voters impacted is staggering. Approximately 400,000 8am-2pm, Mon. Nov. 7 names were removed last year. Close to 2 million have been removed since the 2008 election. And another 1.3 million Ohioans have not voted Weekends: since 2012 and are in the pipeline for the next purge (barring court intervention) if they do not vote this year. Sat. 10/29, 8am-4pm Sun. 10/30, 1-5pm While we would love to see citizens vote in every election, the state should Sat. 11/5, 8am-4pm not be in the business of punishing eligible voters for skipping some years. Sun. 11/6, 1-5pm LWV Ohio believes we have a duty to do something to help these voters, because we do not want to have an onslaught of eligible would-be voters turned away on Election Day as “not registered” when they in fact they did legally register and were purged for being infrequent.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Memorandum on Voting Rights in Ohio (May 2018)
    Advisory Memorandum To: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights From: The Ohio Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Date: May, 2018 Subject: Voting Rights in Ohio On January 17, 2018, the Ohio Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) elected to undertake a study of voting rights in the state. Specifically, in support of the Commission’s 2018 Statutory Enforcement Report on voting rights in the United States, the Committee sought to review related testimony received during a Committee briefing in 2006 to: (1) determine the extent to which voting rights concerns raised in 2006 remained challenges in Ohio in 2018; and (2) identify any new voting rights concerns that may have surfaced in Ohio since that time. As part of its review, the Committee held additional briefings on March 2, 2018 and March 9, 2018. Panelists who had presented to the Committee in 2006 on the topic of voting rights were invited to return to update their testimony. Additional panelists currently involved in voting administration and advocacy were also invited to participate.1 The following advisory memorandum results from a review of the testimony provided to the Committee in 2006, combined with the additional testimony obtained in 2018. It begins with a brief background of the issue to be considered by the Committee. It then identifies primary findings as they emerged from this testimony. Finally, it makes recommendations for addressing related civil rights concerns. This memorandum focuses on the right of all eligible U.S. Citizens to participate in free and fair elections, to vote, and to have their vote counted.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent State Election Law Challenges: in Brief
    Recent State Election Law Challenges: In Brief L. Paige Whitaker Legislative Attorney November 2, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44675 Recent Election Law Challenges: In Brief Summary During the final months and weeks leading up to the November 8, 2016, presidential election, courts across the country have ruled in numerous challenges to state election laws. For example, there have been recent court rulings affecting the laws regulating early voting, voter photo identification (ID) requirements, registration procedures, straight-party voting, and voter rolls. Accordingly, many such laws have been recently invalidated, enjoined, or altered. Others continue to be subject to litigation. Recent rulings in Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas are illustrative examples. In Michigan, a court preliminarily enjoined a 2016 law that ended the ability of voters to vote for a political party’s entire slate of candidates with a single notation—straight-party voting— concluding that it was likely that the challengers would succeed on the merits of their claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In North Carolina, a court invalidated several recent changes to that state’s election laws, including a voter photo ID law, holding that the laws were enacted with a racially discriminatory intent in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the VRA. In Ohio, a court held that a law setting forth the process for removing the names of inactive voters from the voter rolls violates the National Voter Registration Act, and in another case, upheld a law that eliminated a period of early voting and same-day registration, known as “Golden Week,” against a challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause and Section 2 of the VRA.
    [Show full text]